Web Development
Devin vs Claude Code: How to choose in 2026
Claude Code and Devin are often compared as if they were interchangeable AI coding tools. Both can read large codebases, generate and modify code, and help with complex engineering tasks.
In practice, they are very different animals, and which one you choose can heavily impact your productivity. Yes, it’s a brave new world for the AI software engineer.
The difference between Devin and Claude Code is not about model quality or raw capability. It shows up in day-to-day work patterns. It’s about how often you interact with the tool, where it runs, and when you trust it to work on its own.
This article compares Devin versus Claude Code based on how developers actually use each. Instead of listing features in isolation, it examines where each tool fits into real-world workflows and why teams tend to gravitate toward one tool over another.
We’ll break this down bit by bit, but if you’re in a rush, here are all the biggest differences between Devin and Claude Code in one table:
Why Claude Code and Devin feel different in practice
You can distill the core difference between Devin and Claude Code into one sentence:
With Claude, you operate; with Devin, you delegate.
On paper, Claude Code and Devin overlap in many areas. Both can:
- Work across multiple files
- Understand large repositories
- Integrate with GitHub and team workflows
- Assist with refactors, debugging, and code generation
Yet developers often have a strong preference once they try both.
Some describe Claude Code as feeling like an extension of their editor or terminal. Others describe Devin as feeling more like assigning work to a teammate and checking back later.
That gap becomes apparent quickly, even when the feature sets appear similar.
Practical differences developers notice first when comparing Devin and Claude Code
These differences compound over time. They impact trust, workflow, and the frequency with which teams use the tool.
Where the agent lives
One of the clearest differences between Claude Code and Devin is where they run.
Devin runs on a hosted platform. It provides a web interface and a managed execution environment. You enter that environment to assign tasks, review progress, and inspect results.
Claude Code, however, can live inside the developer’s existing toolchain. So you’re an iTerm freak? Or a Ghostty stan? No problem, Claude runs there. Spend your life in Cursor? Again, not a problem. It integrates with the terminal and local editors, and it even has a desktop app. You invoke it from the same environment where you write and run code already.
Why location matters in daily work
Location affects friction. A tool that lives locally blends into existing habits. A tool that lives in a platform introduces a context shift, but also provides a centralized view of work.
Agent location comparison
Developers who spend most of their time in the editor like to stick close to their IDE. But teams managing longer-running tasks often value the visibility that a hosted environment provides. Security concerns and multiplayer capabilities also differ in this regard.
Who drives the work
Another major difference between Devin and Claude Code is how work progresses once it starts.
Claude Code assumes the developer is actively involved. You prompt, review the output, adjust the direction, and continue. The interaction is continuous and flexible. Your hands are very much on the wheel.
Devin assumes that work can be delegated. You define a task, review a plan, and let execution proceed. Interaction happens at clear checkpoints rather than constantly.
Control flow comparison
Neither model is universally better. They serve different types of work patterns. Problems arise when teams expect one workflow and get something very different.
Time management in Devin versus Claude Code
Time management is another area where the two tools diverge.
Claude Code works best when the developer is present. It supports rapid back-and-forth conversation, which is useful for debugging, refactoring, and making design decisions. This is core:
Claude is very dialogical.
Devin is much less so. Devin is optimized for asynchronous execution. It handles work that runs while the developer is away and reports back later.
Synchronous vs asynchronous work
Teams often use both patterns in a single day. The key is knowing which tool aligns with which type of task.
Automation and governance at scale: Devin vs Claude Code
As teams scale and AI usage grows, governance becomes important.
Claude Code exposes building blocks. Hooks, command-line flags, permission controls, and CI integration enable teams to assemble custom workflows.
Devin provides structured workflows. Playbooks, approval steps, and templates encode governance directly into the platform.
Governance model comparison
Teams with strong internal tooling often prefer primitives. Teams that want consistency with minimal setup often prefer packaged workflows.
When Devin or Claude Code doesn’t match the team
Most failed AI tool adoptions don’t fail loudly. They fade into limited use.
The common cause is not capability. It’s a misalignment between how the tool works and how the team works.
Common mismatch patterns
In each case, the tool behaves as designed. The friction comes from the user’s expectations.
A unified workflow solution
Most developer teams don’t operate in a single mode. They might need a tool to do background work (Devin), and another tool to do more foreground work (Claude). Builder is a nice 'Goldilocks' alternative that allows for both: seamless background and foreground agent work, all while providing a best-in-class visual editor (imagine a figma inside your codebase, or a much more mature Cursor design mode).
Builder connects AI execution to real product context, especially for frontend and UI heavy work, while still supporting background agents and workflow triggers. And you can route your AI work to any number of models, so you can easily use Claude Code (or many others) under the hood with all the extra benefits of the Builder platform. You can also run the Builder platform locally as a desktop client, as an extension inside your IDE, or remotely in the Builder’s cloud platform.
How Builder compares at a high level against Devin and Claude Code
Builder doesn’t replace Claude Code or Devin outright. It complements teams that operate across multiple work styles. It also thrives with UI, design-heavy, or frontend tasks. When you need that high-value asset to look perfect on every device, choose Builder.
A practical way to decide
Instead of asking which tool is better, it helps to ask how your team spends most of its time.
Identify dominant work patterns
Tool alignment summary
Final thoughts
Claude Code and Devin are both capable tools. The difference isn’t intelligence. It’s really not even features. It’s their mode that differs the most.
Claude Code fits teams that want tight control and continuous interaction. Devin fits teams that want to delegate work and review outcomes. Builder fits teams that move between modes, need product context alongside code, or have high-stakes UI work involved.
Understanding those differences makes the choice clearer and avoids frustration later.
The best teams are not looking for one perfect AI tool. They choose tools that fit how their work actually gets done.
Share
